Posts Tagged ‘Eugenics’

Ignorance Is Futile Exclusive:

I was just doing a casual view of the governor candidates for here in Florida, clicked on Michael E. Arth’s Wikipedia page, and to my own amazement I happened across this:

UNICE is an acronym for Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Entities, a term coined by artist and futurist Michael E. Arth in the 1990s to describe a new form of intelligent life that he and many others theorize will soon emerge on Earth from a hive-like interaction of computers, humans, and future forms of the Internet. Arth believes that a local form of UNICE will envelope Earth and then, unbounded by biological substrate, will propagate outward into the wider universe. If there is an existing, self-aware Cosmic Internet beyond this planet, our local UNICE could eventually join up with and merge with the greater UNICE. The acronym EUNICE is sometimes used to differentiate Earth’s Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Entities from a truly universal UNICE.

Thus, the term UNICE refers to what will probably happen on Earth and what will or perhaps has already happened throughout the universe or multiverse. UNICE is what will result from accelerating technological change that appears to be leading to a computational or technological singularity. The term Singularity, usually capitalized to differentiate it from a black hole or mathematical singularity, has been described by Ray Kurzweil as “technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history”. Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns, a description and prediction about this accelerating pace of technological change, is a further elaboration of Moore’s law.…

He wrote that, and more. To no surprise, I didn’t notice “UNICE” mentioned over at his campaign site.

Looking through his art section over at his personal website, I couldn’t help but notice this image:

That sure does seem to echo the official image of classical Eugenics:

If you’re not familiar with Eugenics, it should be well worth your time to read up on this largely unknown history. Eugenics is the forebear of modern day Transhumanism, which is in effect what Michael E. Arth is calling for in his UNICE website. This video by TransAlchemy is a great example of this area of discussion:

Another noteworthy piece of art from E. Arth’s site is this:

The unfinished pyramid is an ancient occult / masonic symbolism. I first started pointing out the parallels between occultism and transhumanism back in early 2005, and used the unfinished pyramid as a key example. Here are some quotes I gathered for this back in early 2006:

“This – the evolution of man into superman – was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality. And this is a definite science, a royal art, which it is possible for each of us to put into practice; whilst to join the Craft for any other purpose than to study and pursue this science is to misunderstand its meaning.” -WL Wilmhurst, The Meaning of Masonry, page47

“The triangle also represents the capstone of the unfinished pyramid and reminds the Mason of the immortality of the soul and that in eternity he will complete the capstone of his earthly labors according to the designs on the trestle-board of the Supreme Architect of the Universe. The unfinished pyramid cannot fail to remind him of the unfinished condition of the Temple when tragedy struck down its Masters architect.” -James Davis Carter, Masonry in US History – Background, History and Influence to 1846, The Committee on Masonic Education and Service for the Grand Lodge of Texas A.F.and A. M., Waco, 1955, Ch. 4.

Here’s another off the web:

The unfinished Pyramid can be regarded as a symbol of our unfinished evolution.,19497.15.html

Of course this is the image on the back of our money:

What originally got me thinking of all this back in those days was the symbolism I noticed in a massive 482 page policy document put out by the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation, titled “Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance“. This document was product of a (George W. Bush) White House sponsored conference that involved virtually every department of government & military, that even had Newt Gingrich as the main event keynote speaker.

And some more unfinished pyramid quotes:

“The Great Seal is the signature of this exalted body [a secret body existing in Europe] – unseen and for the most part unknown – and the unfinished pyramid upon its reverse side is a trestle board setting forth the task to the accomplishment of which the United States Government was dedicated from the day of its inception.” – Manley P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages

“It is likely that it was, in fact, inspired by the Masons. And Benjamin Franklin, who spearheaded the design of the Great Seal, was a Mason. So Roosevelt, who lifted the Great Seal’s image from obscurity when he placed it on the back of the $1 bill in 1935.”…

“The unfinished pyramid is generally taken as refering to the country as a work-in-progress, overseen by God.”…

“The Great Seal is the signature of this exalted body – unseen and for the most part unknown – and the unfinished pyramid upon its reverse side is a trestleboard setting forth symbolically the task to the accomplishment of which the United States Government was dedicated from the day of its inception.”…

“On the reverse of our nation’s Great Seal is an unfinished pyramid to represent human society itself, imperfect and incomplete. Above floats the symbol of the esoteric orders, the radiant triangle with its all-seeing eye. … There is only one possible origin for these symbols, and that is the secret societies which came to this country 150 years before the Revolutionary War. … There can be no question that the great seal was directly inspired by these orders of the human Quest, and that it set forth the purpose for this nation. …” — Manly P. Hall 33rd Degree, The Secret Destiny of America, pp. 175 and 181.

Many New Age followers refer to the union of Earth and nature as Gaia. Further, many speak of the Gaiamind, the Earth mind collective oneness, a sort of one world religion collective Earth consciousness. And then we have MICHAEL E. ARTH, calling for just that via technology.

*Obama’s NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno convergence) Agenda.

Psychiatric Drugging of Infants & Toddlers Doubled Over Last 10 Years

ADL Calls For “Major Law Enforcement Operation” To Deal With Obamacare Critics

Creating Lists Of Political Dissidents: Good Enough For The Nazis, Good Enough For the SPLC

Savage: Obama Regime Will Stage Violence To Crush Dissent

Poll: Americans’ distrust of federal government is deepening

More American Expatriates Give Up Citizenship

18 veterans kill themselves every day: report

Newt Gingrich: Tea Party Will Become “Militant” Faction of Republican Party

Washington Post Writer: Internet Journalism Is “Sort Of Like Terrorism”

CFR Journalist Calls Tea Party Talk Seditious

The Slippery Definition of Extremism

SPLC Declares Paul and Napolitano “Extremist” Enablers

Racist Provocateur Posing As Tea Partier Threatens To Shoot Obama

Oath Keepers Withdraw From DC Rally Over Violent Threats

CBS Poll: Republicans Have Absorbed the Tea Party

Right-wing radio host calls tea parties ‘the Sarah Palin movement’

Do NOT Vote Republican or Democract

Obamanoids “Crash” Tea Party, Claim Dear Leader Has Cut Taxes

Establishment Exploits OKC Bombing Victims To Push “Extremist Threat” Propaganda

U.S. Troops Apologize For Wikileaks Massacre Video

Oath Keepers Withdraw From DC Rally Over Violent Threats

Army Report Says Christians Threaten U.S. Foreign Policy

Cops drop ‘corrupting youth’ charge against war protester’s mom

Unprovoked Cops Viciously Beat Student Then Charge Him With Assault

Tyranny Response Team Engages Gestapo Youth

Cops & CPS Seize Child From Parents For Mistrusting Government

Video Proves Tea Party Activist Did Not Spit On Dem

CNN, SPLC Propaganda Connects Hutaree to Patriot Movement

Perversion Is Fine, So Long As You’re In A Position Of Authority

Congressman Massa: ‘You Can Literally Be Bought and Sold Legally’

A renowned environmentalist, known for his advocacy of population reduction as a means of offsetting climate change, has called for “a more authoritative world” where freedom comes second to tackling what he sees as the devastating effects of global warming. Futurist James Lovelock, tells the London Guardian that he believes “It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while,” in order to save humanity:

Prison Planet

Obama Admin: “Produce a global regime” to combat climate change

Take a look at this image of the placement of a weather station near an airport runway: LINK

Guide to the Climate Scandals

Coleman’s Corner (great San Diego local news reports)

Government Report Says Global Warming May Cause Cancer, Mental Illness

Climate-Change Bill Avoids ‘Cap-and-Trade’ Tag in U.S. Senate

UN IPCC Scientist: ‘The currently promoted greenhouse theory is dead and its consequences have to be removed at once’

“Climate Change” Scamsters to go Global

Not a joke: Gore’s “Inconvenient Youth

In U.S., Many Environmental Issues at 20-Year-Low Concern

NPR and CNN worry that Global Warming may have caused Iceland’s Volcano!!!

Climate sceptic wins landmark data victory ‘for price of a stamp’

Sting’s Hypocritical “Green Tea Party” Lecture

CNN Pushes Brutal One Child Policy As Part Of “Green” Love Life

Wikipedia and Environment Canada caught with temperature data errors.

NASA “Facts” document doubts climate model certainty

‘Population Bomb’ author Paul Ehrlich suggested adding a forced sterilization agent to ’staple food’ and ‘water supply’

A House bill aiming to make research and data open to the public

UN Plans for “Green World Order”

Climategate Investigation Whitewash: Third Panel Member Exposed As Warmist

‘Hockey stick’ graph was exaggerated – McIntyre gets props

IPCC AR4 also gets a failing grade on 21 chapters

The new math – IPCC version

British lawyer urges UN to accept ‘ecocide’ as international crime on par with genocide

Sediments Show Pattern in Earth’s Long-Term Climate Record

I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones

More “hiding the decline”

IPCC – How not to compare temperatures

VIDEO: Congressman believes islands float, and tip over with too many people

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits

Atlantic conveyor belt – still going strong and will be the day after tomorrow

The Guardian sees the light on wind driven Arctic ice loss

Flowers Losing Scent Due to Climate Change

Find the weather station in this photo

North and Booker on Amazongate: A $60 Billion cash cow

Weather balloon data backs up missing decline found in old magazine

Medieval Warm Period seen in western USA tree ring fire scars

Sat tracking of ultraviolet light shows increase since 1979

Another Look at Climate Sensitivity (No Atmosphere = only 8°C cooler)

Rewriting the decline

UK ads banned for overstating climate change

Another WWF assisted IPCC claim debunked: Amazon more drought resistant than claimed


Spencer: Global Urban Heat Island Effect Study – An Update

When the IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period

Former Apartheid Spy Appointed to Head UN Climate Change Effort

Accuracy of climate station electronic sensors – not the best

IPCC AR4 Commenter: “I do not understand why this trend is insignificant – it is more than three times the quoted error estimates”

Former VP Gore to Receive Honorary Doctorate from UT Knoxville

2001-2010 was the Snowiest Decade on Record

Head of ‘Climategate’ research unit admits he hid data – because it was ‘standard practice’

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

The Times: “University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’”

Institute of Physics on Climategate

A new paper comparing NCDC rural and urban US surface temperature data

WMO: “. . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.”

Climategate Minority Report

2009 paper confirming IPCC sea level conclusions withdrawn, mistakes cited

U.N. Climate Chief Resigns

IPCC gate Du Jour – Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%

IPCC Gate Du Jour – now IPCC hurricane data questioned

Scripps: Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Possibly Triggered by Ocean Waves

CRU’s Jones: Climate data ‘not well organised’ and MWP debate ‘not settled’

New Paper in Science: Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower

Nature suggests IPCC get an overhaul or scrapped

The Green Police: window swat team edition

NOAA’s new website – a first day sin of omission

IPCC Gate Du Jour: Aussie Droughtgate

Munging Madagascar

New study using satellite data: Alaskan glacier melt overestimated

The Times: Top British scientist says IPCC is losing credibility

Israeli study shows variable sea level in past 2500 years

Forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years

LBNL on Himalayas: “greenhouse gases alone are not nearly enough to be responsible for the snow melt”

Climategate intensifies: Jones and Wang apparently hid Chinese station data issues

Spencer: Natural variability unexplained in IPCC models

Record cold in Florida kills reef coral

UHI is alive and well

IPCC Gate Du Jour: UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

New paper in Nature on CO2 amplification: “it’s less than we thought”

Floating Islands

Amazon flavor “gate du jour” leaves a bad taste

Pew Poll: global warming dead last, down from last year

Loophole in UK FOIA law will apparently allow CRU to avoid prosecution

For the IPCC AR4, “weather events are climate” – looks like another retraction is needed

“The Science is Scuttled” – NASA climate page, suckered by IPCC, deletes their own ‘moved up’ glacier melting date reference

scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

Save the planet from GHG’s – use astroturf?

Brookhaven National Laboratory: Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?

The IPCC: Hiding the Decline in the Future Global Population at Risk of Water Shortage

Newly released FOIA’d emails from Hansen and GISS staffers show disagreement over 1998-1934 U.S. temperature ranking

Carbon trading fraud in Belgium – “up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities”

Not as bad as they thought: Coral can recover from climate change damage

More carbon is sequestered by echinoderms than previously thought.

Winter kills: Excess Deaths in the Winter Months

Swiss ETH: Glaciers melted in the 1940′s faster than today

NASA -vs- NASA: which temperature anomaly map to believe?

No statistically significant warming since 1995: a quick mathematical proof

Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming

Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations

Soot having a big impact on Himalyan temperature – as much or more than GHG’s

What’s going on? CRU takes down Briffa Tree Ring Data and more

Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?

GISS “raw” station data – before and after

Counting CRU “tricks”

Detroit police inspecting a clandestine underground brewery during Prohibition.

By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisons—kerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be added—up to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly.

The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences.

Slate | Feb 19, 2010

The Chemist’s War

By Deborah Blum

It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus stumbled into the emergency room at New York City’s Bellevue Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat.

Before hospital staff realized how sick he was—the alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptom—the man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season.

Doctors were accustomed to alcohol poisoning by then, the routine of life in the Prohibition era. The bootlegged whiskies and so-called gins often made people sick. The liquor produced in hidden stills frequently came tainted with metals and other impurities. But this outbreak was bizarrely different. The deaths, as investigators would shortly realize, came courtesy of the U.S. government.

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Although mostly forgotten today, the “chemist’s war of Prohibition” remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was “our national experiment in extermination.” Poisonous alcohol still kills—16 people died just this month after drinking lethal booze in Indonesia, where bootleggers make their own brews to avoid steep taxes—but that’s due to unscrupulous businessmen rather than government order.

I learned of the federal poisoning program while researching my new book, The Poisoner’s Handbook, which is set in jazz-age New York. My first reaction was that I must have gotten it wrong. “I never heard that the government poisoned people during Prohibition, did you?” I kept saying to friends, family members, colleagues.

I did, however, remember the U.S. government’s controversial decision in the 1970s to spray Mexican marijuana fields with Paraquat, an herbicide. Its use was primarily intended to destroy crops, but government officials also insisted that awareness of the toxin would deter marijuana smokers. They echoed the official position of the 1920s—if some citizens ended up poisoned, well, they’d brought it upon themselves. Although Paraquat wasn’t really all that toxic, the outcry forced the government to drop the plan. Still, the incident created an unsurprising lack of trust in government motives, which reveals itself in the occasional rumors circulating today that federal agencies, such as the CIA, mix poison into the illegal drug supply.

During Prohibition, however, an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: “Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified.” Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. “Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?” asked Nebraska’s Omaha Bee.

The saga began with ratification of the 18th Amendment, which banned the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States.* High-minded crusaders and anti-alcohol organizations had helped push the amendment through in 1919, playing on fears of moral decay in a country just emerging from war. The Volstead Act, spelling out the rules for enforcement, passed shortly later, and Prohibition itself went into effect on Jan. 1, 1920.

But people continued to drink—and in large quantities. Alcoholism rates soared during the 1920s; insurance companies charted the increase at more than 300 more percent. Speakeasies promptly opened for business. By the decade’s end, some 30,000 existed in New York City alone. Street gangs grew into bootlegging empires built on smuggling, stealing, and manufacturing illegal alcohol. The country’s defiant response to the new laws shocked those who sincerely (and naively) believed that the amendment would usher in a new era of upright behavior.

Rigorous enforcement had managed to slow the smuggling of alcohol from Canada and other countries. But crime syndicates responded by stealing massive quantities of industrial alcohol—used in paints and solvents, fuels and medical supplies—and redistilling it to make it potable.

Well, sort of. Industrial alcohol is basically grain alcohol with some unpleasant chemicals mixed in to render it undrinkable. The U.S. government started requiring this “denaturing” process in 1906 for manufacturers who wanted to avoid the taxes levied on potable spirits. The U.S. Treasury Department, charged with overseeing alcohol enforcement, estimated that by the mid-1920s, some 60 million gallons of industrial alcohol were stolen annually to supply the country’s drinkers. In response, in 1926, President Calvin Coolidge’s government decided to turn to chemistry as an enforcement tool. Some 70 denaturing formulas existed by the 1920s. Most simply added poisonous methyl alcohol into the mix. Others used bitter-tasting compounds that were less lethal, designed to make the alcohol taste so awful that it became undrinkable.

To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to “renature” the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly.

By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisons—kerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be added—up to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly.

The results were immediate, starting with that horrific holiday body count in the closing days of 1926. Public health officials responded with shock. “The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol,” New York City medical examiner Charles Norris said at a hastily organized press conference. “[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible.”

His department issued warnings to citizens, detailing the dangers in whiskey circulating in the city: “[P]ractically all the liquor that is sold in New York today is toxic,” read one 1928 alert. He publicized every death by alcohol poisoning. He assigned his toxicologist, Alexander Gettler, to analyze confiscated whiskey for poisons—that long list of toxic materials I cited came in part from studies done by the New York City medical examiner’s office.

Norris also condemned the federal program for its disproportionate effect on the country’s poorest residents. Wealthy people, he pointed out, could afford the best whiskey available. Most of those sickened and dying were those “who cannot afford expensive protection and deal in low grade stuff.”

And the numbers were not trivial. In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700. These numbers were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor. Furious anti-Prohibition legislators pushed for a halt in the use of lethal chemistry. “Only one possessing the instincts of a wild beast would desire to kill or make blind the man who takes a drink of liquor, even if he purchased it from one violating the Prohibition statutes,” proclaimed Sen. James Reed of Missouri.

Officially, the special denaturing program ended only once the 18th Amendment was repealed in December 1933. But the chemist’s war itself faded away before then. Slowly, government officials quit talking about it. And when Prohibition ended and good grain whiskey reappeared, it was almost as if the craziness of Prohibition—and the poisonous measures taken to enforce it—had never quite happened.

I found this article in a text book I own titled “TAKING SIDES: Clashing views on Controversial Environmental Issues (Tenth Edition”), which is curriculum at the University of South Florida. The article itself was written in 1999, the textbook in 2003. I added the helpful links in.

By Stephen Moore. Mr. Moore is a director at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

At a Washington reception, the conversation turned to the merits of small families. One woman volunteered that she had just read Bill McKibben‘s environmental tome, Maybe One, on the benefits of single-child families.

She claimed to have found it “ethically compelling.” I chimed in: “Even one child may put too much stress on our fragile ecosystem. McKibben says ‘maybe one.’ I say, why not none?” The response was solemn nods of agreement, and even some guilt-ridden whispers between husbands and wives.

McKibben’s acclaimed book is a tribute to the theories of British economist Thomas Malthus. Exactly 200 years ago, Malthus-the original dismal scientist-wrote that “the power of population is . . . greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” McKibben’s application of this idea was to rush out and have a vasectomy. He urges his fellow greens to do the same-to make single-child families the “cultural norm” in America.

Now, with the United Nations proclaiming that this month we will surpass the demographic milestone of 6 billion people, the environmental movement and the media can be expected to ask: Do we really need so many people? A recent AP headline lamented: “Century’s growth leaves Earth crowded-and noisy.” Seemingly, Malthus has never had so many apostles.

In a rational world, Malthusianism would not be in a state of intellectual revival, but thorough disrepute. After all, virtually every objective trend is running in precisely the opposite direction of what the widely acclaimed Malthusians of the 1960s-from Lester Brown to Paul Ehrlich to the Club of Rome-predicted. Birth rates around the world are lower today than at any time in recorded history. Global per capita food production is much higher than ever before. The “energy crisis” is now such a distant memory that oil is virtually the cheapest liquid on earth. These facts, collectively, have wrecked the credibility of the population-bomb propagandists.

Yet the population-control movement is gaining steam. It has won the hearts and wallets of some of the most influential leaders inside and outside government today. Malthusianism has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar industry and a political juggernaut.

Today, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), the State Department, and the World Bank, the federal government pumps some 350 million tax dollars a year into population-containment activities. The Clinton administration would be spending at least twice that amount if not for the efforts of two Republican congressmen, Chris Smith of New Jersey and Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, who have managed to cut off funding for the most coercive birth-reduction initiatives.

Defenders of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and other such agencies insist that these programs “protect women’s reproductive freedom,” “promote the health of mothers,” and “reduce infant mortality.” Opponents of international “family planning,” particularly Catholic organizations, are tarred as anti-abortion fanatics who want to deprive poor women of safe and cheap contraception. A 1998 newspaper ad by Planned Parenthood, entitled “The Right Wing Coup in Family Planning,” urged continued USAID funding by proclaiming: “The very survival of women and children is at stake in this battle.” Such rhetoric is truly Orwellian, given that the entire objective of government-sponsored birth-control programs has been to invade couples’ “reproductive rights” in order to limit family size. The crusaders have believed, from the very outset, that coercion is necessary in order to restrain fertility and avert global eco-collapse.

The consequences of this crusade are morally atrocious. Consider the one-child policy in China. Some 10 million to 20 million Chinese girls are demographically “missing” today because of “sex-selective abortion of female fetuses, female infant mortality (through infanticide or abandonment), and

selective neglect of girls ages 1 to 4,” according to a 1996 U.S. Census Bureau report. Girls account for over 90 percent of the inmates of Chinese orphanages-where children are left to die from neglect.

Last year, Congress heard testimony from Gao Xiao Duan, a former Chinese administrator of the one-couple, one-child policy. Gao testified that if a woman in rural China is discovered to be pregnant without a state-issued “birth-allowed certificate,” she typically must undergo an abortion-no matter how many months pregnant she is. Gao recalled, “Once I found a woman who was nine months’ pregnant but did not have a birth-allowed certificate.

According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery. In the operating room, I saw how the aborted child’s lips were sucking, how its limbs were stretching. A physician injected poison into its skull, and the child died and was thrown into the trash can.”

The pro-choice movement is notably silent about this invasion of women’s “reproductive rights.” In 1989, Molly Yard, of the National Organization for Women, actually praised China’s program as “among the most intelligent in the world.” Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, the godfather of today’s neo-Malthusian movement, once trumpeted China’s population control as “remarkably vigorous and effective.” He has congratulated Chinese rulers for their “grand experiment in the management of population.”

Last summer, Lisa McRee of Good Morning America started an interview with Bill McKibben by asking, in all seriousness, “Is China’s one-child policy a good idea for every country?” She might as well have asked whether every country should have gulags.

Gregg Easterbrook, writing in the Nov. 23, 1998 New Republic, correctly lambasted China for its “horrifying record on forced abortion and sterilization.” But even the usually sensible Easterbrook offered up a limp apology for the one-child policy, writing that “China, which is almost out of arable land, had little choice but to attempt some degree of fertility constraint.” Hong Kong has virtually no arable land, and 75 times the population density of mainland China, but has one of the best-fed populations in the world.

These coercive practices are spreading to other countries. Brian Clowes writes in the Yale Journal of Ethics that coercion has been used to promote family planning in at least 35 developing countries. Peru has started to use sterilization as a means of family planning, and doctors have to meet sterilization quotas or risk losing their jobs. The same is true in Mexico.

In disease-ridden African countries such as Nigeria and Kenya, hospitals often lack even the most rudimentary medical care, but are stocked to the rafters with boxes of contraceptives stamped “UNFPA” and “USAID.” UNFPA boasts that, thanks to its shipments, more than 80 percent of the women in Haiti have access to contraceptives; this is apparently a higher priority than providing access to clean water, which is still unavailable to more than half of the Haitian population.

Population-control groups like Zero Population Growth and International Planned Parenthood have teamed up with pro-choice women in Congress-led by Carolyn Maloney of New York, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, and Connie Morella of Maryland-to try to secure $60 million in U.S. funding for UNFPA over the next two years. Maloney pledges, “I’m going to do whatever it takes to restore funding for [UNFPA]” this year.

Support for this initiative is based on two misconceptions. The first is the excessively optimistic view that (in the words of a Chicago Tribune report) “one child zealotry in China is fading.” The Population Research Institute’s Steve Mosher, an authority on Chinese population activities, retorts, “This fantasy that things are getting better in China has been the constant refrain of the one-child apologists for at least the past twenty years.” In fact, after UNFPA announced in 1997 that it was going back into China, state councillor Peng Peiyun defiantly announced, “China will not slacken our family-planning policy in the next century.”

The second myth is that UNFPA has always been part of the solution, and has tried to end China’s one-child policy. We are told that it is pushing Beijing toward more “female friendly” family planning. This, too, is false.

UNFPA has actually given an award to China for its effectiveness in population-control activities-activities far from female-friendly. Worse, UNFPA’s executive director, Nafis Sadik, is, like her predecessors, a longtime apologist for the China program and even denies that it is coercive. She is on record as saying-falsely-that “the implementation of the policy is purely voluntary. There is no such thing as a license to have a birth.”

Despite UNFPA’s track record, don’t be surprised if Congress winds up re-funding it. The past 20 years may have demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of the population controllers, but their coffers have never been more flush.

American billionaires, past and present, have devoted large parts of their fortunes to population control. The modern-day population-control movement dates to 1952, when John D. Rockefeller returned from a trip to Asia convinced that the teeming masses he saw there were the single greatest threat to the earth’s survival. He proceeded to divert hundreds of millions of dollars from his foundation to the goal of population stabilization. He was followed by David Packard (co-founder of Hewlett-Packard), who created a $9 billion foundation whose top priority was reducing world population.

Today, these foundations are joined by organizations ranging from Zero Population Growth (ZPG) to Negative Population Growth (which advocates an optimal U.S. population size of 150 million-120 million fewer than now) to Planned Parenthood to the Sierra Club. The combined budget of these groups approaches $1 billion.

These organizations tend to be extremist. Take ZPG. Its board of directors passed a resolution declaring that “parenthood is not an inherent right but a privilege” granted by the state, and that “every American family has a right to no more than two children.”

“Population growth is analogous to a plague of locusts,” says Ted Turner, a major source of population-movement funding. “What we have on this earth today is a plague of people. Nature did not intend for there to be as many people as there are.” Turner has also penned “The Ted Commandments,” which include “a promise to have no more than two children or no more than my nation suggests.” He recently reconsidered his manifesto, and now believes that the voluntary limit should be even lower-just one child. In Turner’s utopia, there are no brothers, sisters, aunts, or uncles.

Turner’s $1 billion donation to the U.N. is a pittance compared with the fortunes that Warren Buffett (net worth $36 billion) and Bill Gates (net worth roughly $100 billion) may bestow on the cause of population control.

Buffett has announced repeatedly that he views overpopulation as one of the greatest crises in the world today. Earlier this year, Gates and his wife contributed an estimated $7 billion to their foundation, of which the funding of population programs is one of five major initiatives.

This is a massive misallocation of funds, for the simple reason that the overpopulation crisis is a hoax. It is true that world population has tripled over the last century. But the explanation is both simple and benign: First, life expectancy-possibly the best overall numerical measure of human well-being-has almost doubled in the last 100 years, and the years we are tacking on to life are both more active and more productive. Second, people are wealthier-they can afford better health care, better diets, and a cleaner environment. As a result, infant-mortality rates have declined nearly tenfold in this century. As the late Julian Simon often explained, population growth is a sign of mankind’s greatest triumph-our gains against death.

We are told that this good news is really bad news, because human numbers are soon going to bump up against the planet’s “carrying capacity.”

Pessimists worry that man is procreating as uncontrollably as John B.

Calhoun’s famous Norwegian rats, which multiply until they die off from lack of sustenance. Bill McKibben warns that “we are adding another New York City every month, a Mexico every year, and almost another India every decade.”

But a closer look shows that these fears are unfounded. Fact: If every one of the 6 billion of us resided in Texas, there would be room enough for every family of four to have a house and one-eighth of an acre of land-the rest of the globe would be vacant. (True, if population growth continued, some of these people would eventually spill over into Oklahoma.) In short, the population bomb has been defused. The birth rate in developing countries has plummeted from just over 6 children per couple in 1950 to just over 3 today. The major explanation for smaller family sizes, even in China, has been economic growth. The Reaganites were right on the mark when, in 1984, they proclaimed this truth to a distraught U.N. delegation in Mexico City. (The policy they enunciated has been memorably expressed in the phrase “capitalism is by far the best contraceptive.”) The fertility rate in the developed world has fallen from 3.3 per couple in 1950 to 1.6 today. These low fertility rates presage declining populations.

If, for example, Japan’s birth rate is not raised at some point, in 500 years there will be only about 15 Japanese left on the planet.

Other Malthusian worries are similarly wrongheaded. Global food prices have fallen by half since 1950, even as world population has doubled. The dean of agricultural economists, D. Gale Johnson of the University of Chicago, has documented “a dramatic decline in famines” in the last 50 years. Fewer than half as many people die of famine each year now than did a century ago-despite a near-quadrupling of the population. Enough food is now grown in the world to provide every resident of the planet with almost four pounds of food a day. In each of the past three years, global food production has reached new heights.

Overeating is fast becoming the globe’s primary dietary malady. “It’s amazing to say, but our problem is becoming overnutrition,” Ho Zhiqiuan, a Chinese nutrition expert, recently told National Geographic. “Today in China obesity is becoming common.”

Millions are still hungry, and famines continue to occur-but these are the result of government policies or political malice, not inadequate global food production. As the International Red Cross has reported, “the loss of access to food resources [during famines] is generally the result of intentional acts” by governments.

Even if the apocalyptic types are correct and population grows to 12 billion in the 21st century, so what? Assuming that human progress and scientific advancement continue as they have, and assuming that the global march toward capitalism is not reversed, those 12 billion people will undoubtedly be richer, healthier, and better fed than the 6 billion of us alive today. After all, we 6 billion are much richer, healthier, and better fed than the 1 billion who lived in 1800 or the 2 billion alive in 1920.

The greatest threat to the planet is not too many people, but too much statism. The Communists, after all, were the greatest polluters in history.

Economist Mikhail Bernstam has discovered that market-based economies are about two to three times more energy-efficient than Communist, socialist, Maoist, or “Third Way” economies. Capitalist South Korea has three times the population density of socialist North Korea, but South Koreans are well fed while 250,000 North Koreans have starved to death in the last decade.

Government-funded population programs are actually counterproductive, because they legitimize command-and-control decision-making. As the great development economist Alan Rufus Waters puts it, “Foreign aid used for population activities gives enormous resources and control apparatus to the local administrative elite and thus sustains the authoritarian attitudes corrosive to the development process.”

This approach usually ends up making poor people poorer, because it distracts developing nations from their most pressing task, which is market reform. When Mao’s China established central planning and communal ownership of agriculture, tens of millions of Chinese peasants starved to death. In 1980, after private ownership was established, China’s agricultural output doubled in just ten years. If Chinese leaders over the past 30 years had concentrated on rapid privatization and market reform, it’s quite possible that economic development would have decreased birth rates every bit as rapidly as the one-child policy.

The problem with trying to win this debate with logic and an arsenal of facts is that modern Malthusianism is not a scientific theory at all. It’s a religion, in which the assertion that mankind is overbreeding is accepted as an article of faith. I recently participated in a debate before an anti-population group called Carrying Capacity Network, at which one scholar informed me that man’s presence on the earth is destructive because Homo sapiens is the only species without a natural predator. It’s hard to argue with somebody who despairs because mankind is alone at the top of the food chain.

At its core, the population-control ethic is an assault on the principle that every human life has intrinsic value. Malthusian activists tend to view human beings neither as endowed with intrinsic value, nor even as resources, but primarily as consumers of resources. No wonder that at last year’s ZPG conference, the Catholic Church was routinely disparaged as “our enemy” and “the evil empire.”

The movement also poses a serious threat to freedom. Decisions on whether to have children-and how many-are among are the most private of all human choices. If governments are allowed to control human reproduction, virtually no rights of the individual will remain inviolable by the state.

The consequence, as we have seen in China, is the debasement of human dignity on a grand scale.

Another (true) scene from a party: A radiant pregnant woman is asked whether this is her first child. She says, no, in fact, it is her sixth.

Yuppies gasp, as if she has admitted that she has leprosy. To have three kids-to be above replacement level-is regarded by many as an act of eco-terrorism.

But the good news for this pregnant woman, and the millions of others who want to have lots of kids, is that the Malthusians are simply wrong. There is no moral, economic, or environmental case for small families. Period.

If some choose to subscribe to a voluntary one-child policy, so be it. But the rest of us-Americans, Chinese, and everybody else-don’t need or want Ted Turner or the United Nations to tell us how many kids to have. Congress should not be expanding “international family planning” funding, but terminating it.

Congress may want to consider a little-known footnote of history. In time, Thomas Malthus realized that his dismal population theories were wrong. He awoke to the reality that human beings are not like Norwegian rats at all.

Why? Because, he said, man is “impelled” by “reason” to solve problems, and not to “bring beings into the world for whom he cannot provide the means of support.” Amazingly, 200 years later, his disciples have yet to grasp this lesson.

COPYRIGHT 1999 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group